So, due to underparenthesisation, this INDEX(i+1) is now a ... (TVR_BITS + i
+ 1 * TVN_BITS)) ...
So this bugfix changes behaviour. It worked before by sheer luck:
"If i was anything but 0, it was broken. But this was only used by
s390 and arm. Since it was for the next interrupt, could that next
interrupt be a problem (going into the second cascade)? But it was
probably seldom wrong. That is, this would fail if the next
interrupt was in the second cascade, and was wrapped. Which may
never of happened. Also if it did happen, it would have just missed
the interrupt.
If an interrupt was missed, and no one was there to miss it, was it
really missed :-)"
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>